"Can I look in the vehicle?" wife & kids present

[hqmhqm]

When I was in college, I was stopped for speeding. I can't remember exactly what was said, but the policeman saw a surgical forceps on the dash (or maybe the glove compartment), and took it. I assume he thought it was being used some sort of drug equipment, but it was just a tool I had in the car to help getting a hose onto the engine someplace (the car was an old fixer-upper that we were always tweaking with).

It may seem relatively minor, but it's a lesson I've never forgotten; that the police see every tool through their lens as potential criminal equipment, they will just take stuff without giving it back, and that regardless of the how good they may be individually as people, they belong to a beaureacratic organization that does not have your your freedom and civil rights, as its top priority.

 

[Smurfslayer]

your other rights

Everybody here seems so intent on engaging the nice hypothetical officer in polite conversation.

An automobile stop is an affront to your freedom of movement, a curtailment of your liberty more often than not based on scurrilous allegations against your character and honor! WHY on earth would you even remotely consider this person polite, or friendly? Remember, if he's stopping you for some petty traffic violation, he's doing his part to keep America safe for terrorist attacks and opening the door for rampage killers.

Don't be so intent upon your 4A rights that you forget your 5A right to shut the heck up and not talk. No need to engage the terrorist abettors who run traffic patrol in some fruitless attempt to convince somoeone who cannot be convinced of your righteousness.

No, you may not search. Am I free to leave? I'm not answering any questions and do wish to engage in conversation. Once again, am I free to go?

Keep it simple. The longer the officer spends with a THR, the longer they're not looking for a criminal.

A DC MPD officer relayed to me last night - people get hung up on 'arrest statistics', if an officer is making a lot of arrests, someone's not doing their job. Our job is also to be a visible presence to DETER crime from happening in the first place. I responded in agreement that this principle is elementary, from the very first days in school, there were those who would misbehave as soon as the teacher left the room and that is true for adults as well. Some of those students grew up to be criminals, some to be cops - and they may be good ones. They may also push the limits just a little too far. If you don't object to behavior like these roadside searches, they continue to get more and more intrusive.

 

[budney]

You can have whatever opinion you want, but the officer will probably tell you, "You aren't free to leave." And it is not going to help you.

The point of asking whether you're detained is to minimize the length of the encounter by leaving at the first opportunity. Hopefully, it also encourages him to fish or cut bait--to issue your traffic citation without prolonging his efforts to nail you for gun-running, dope-smuggling and white-slaving.

You have probably been detained for a minor traffic offense or detained due to reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offense.

That's right! So he should promptly issue a citation and go about his business. If he's peeking in your windows and asking you trick questions, he's hoping to turn your busted taillight into a drug bust. "Am I free to leave?" means, "Give me my d--n ticket and go about your business." Anything else you say is liable to furnish the reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause he doesn't have but is looking for.

Don't be so intent upon your 4A rights that you forget your 5A right to shut the heck up and not talk. No need to engage the terrorist abettors who run traffic patrol in some fruitless attempt to convince somoeone who cannot be convinced of your righteousness.

No, you may not search. Am I free to leave?

Exactly: you only have two things to say. "I don't consent to any searches," and, "Am I free to leave?" Anything else you say is liable to supply the reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause that the officer doesn't have and is looking for.

--Len.

 

[Pitt762x54r]

My story:

A few months back I was stopped for making an illegal left turn. I didn't see any sign, but considering the construction in the area it is likely the traffic route had changed slightly. I drive a 97 Grand Cherokee Limited, was wearing standard range gear and had my brother with me. I am sure we looked a little shady at the time.

Everything was normal for a while, and I was polite explaining that I was not aware of the "no left" and in the future I would be more aware. He goes back to run my info (100% clean) and comes back to ask if he could search. I simply said "no". He paused for a second, gave me a strange look, and handed back my info and told me to drive safe.

I didn't have anything illegal in the car, and nobody drives with me to plant or leave anything, I just don't want anyone going through my car. If they call in extra support, dogs, handcuff me I really don't care I am not going to give the OK to search my car, house, or person.

Every other time I have been stopped they didn't even ask, just handed me a ticket and left.

 

[Outlaws]

Michigan vs. Long. They may pull you out of the vehicle, then frisk the passenger compartment.

Did you read the whole thing? Or did you just google until you found something that kinda helped your failed argument and quit reading after that?

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

463 U.S. 1032
Michigan v. Long
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN
No. 82-256 Argued: February 23, 1983 --- Decided: July 6, 1983

Two police officers, patrolling in a rural area at night, observed a car traveling erratically and at excessive speed. When the car swerved into a ditch, the officers stopped to investigate and were met by respondent, the only occupant of the car, at the rear of the car. Respondent, who "appeared to be under the influence of something," did not respond to initial requests to produce his license and registration, and when he began walking toward the open door of the car, apparently to obtain the registration, the officers followed him and saw a hunting knife on the floorboard of the driver's side of the car. The officers then stopped respondent and subjected him to a patdown search, which revealed no weapons. One of the officers shined his flashlight into the car, saw something protruding from under the armrest on the front seat, and, upon lifting the armrest, saw an open pouch that contained what appeared to be marihuana. Respondent was then arrested for possession of marihuana. A further search of the car's interior revealed no more contraband, but the officers decided to impound the vehicle, and more marihuana was found in the trunk. The Michigan state trial court denied respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana taken from both the car's interior and its trunk, and he was convicted of possession of marihuana. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the search of the passenger compartment was valid as a protective search under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, and that the search of the trunk was valid as an inventory search under South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364. However, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that Terry did not justify the passenger compartment search, and that the marihuana found in the trunk was the "fruit" of the illegal search of the car's interior.

Held:

1. This Court does not lack jurisdiction to decide the case on the asserted ground that the decision below rests on an adequate and independent state ground. Because of respect for the independence of state courts and the need to avoid rendering advisory opinions, this Court, in determining whether state court references to state law constitute adequate and independent state grounds, will no longer look beyond the opinion under review, or require state courts to reconsider cases to clarify the grounds of their decisions. Accordingly, when a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven [p1033] with federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, this Court will accept as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case the way it did because it believed that federal law required it to do so. If the state court decision indicates clearly and expressly that it is alternatively based on bona fide separate, adequate, and independent state grounds, this Court will not undertake to review the decision. In this case, apart from two citations to the State Constitution, the court below relied exclusively on its understanding of Terry and other federal cases. Even if it is accepted that the Michigan Constitution has been interpreted to provide independent protection for certain rights also secured under the Fourth Amendment, it fairly appears that the Michigan Supreme Court rested its decision primarily on federal law. Pp. 1037-1044.

2. The protective search of the passenger compartment of respondent's car was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. Although Terry involved the stop and subsequent patdown search for weapons of a person suspected of criminal activity, it did not restrict the preventive search to the person of the detained suspect. Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger. Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of an automobile's interior, the officer discovers contraband other than weapons, he cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances. The circumstances of this case justified the officers in their reasonable belief that respondent posed a danger if he were permitted to reenter his vehicle. Nor did they act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within respondent's immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile. The fact that respondent was under the officers' control during the investigative stop does not render unreasonable their belief that he could injure them. Pp. 1045-1052.

3. Because the Michigan Supreme Court suppressed the marihuana taken from the trunk as a fruit of what it erroneously held was an illegal [p1034] search of the car's interior, the case is remanded to enable it to determine whether the trunk search was permissible under Opperman, supra, or other decisions of this Court. P. 1053.

O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, and in Parts I, III, IV, and V of which BLACKMUN, J., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 1054. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 1054. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 1065.

So explain what part says they may "frisk the passenger compartment"?

However, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that Terry did not justify the passenger compartment search, and that the marihuana found in the trunk was the "fruit" of the illegal search of the car's interior.

Doesn't sound like the search held up.

I would ask for your money back from that "top 30" school.

 

[nemoaz]

This is why it's dangerous for a layperson to attempt to read caselaw. You don't have "the rest of the outline" so to speak. And yes, I've read the whole case, briefed most of them, and was drilled on every point (and footnote) by a demanding professor (who was an alcoholic and hated the world).

The case upheld the search of the CONTAINER within the trunk, as an extension of Terry, but not the rest of the vehicle for an unrelated reason. You were mislead by the unrelated reason (PC for the search of the car itself as opposed to whether or not the containeer could be searched and the fact that there is an issue about federal constitutional interpretation vs. state law). It is the seminal case on this point. I am not going to be able to give you an entire course on criminal procedure. Check out one of the outlines online, or a Gilberts or similar law summary if that is what you want.

 

[nemoaz]

And just in case you want to read more, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_v._Long.

There are more exact cases for specific propositions, ie clarifying that the container was locked, or that the container was locked inside of a locked container (ie locked luggage in a trunk) but I don't have access to Westlaw or similar tools here at home.

 

[Outlaws]

Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that extended Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to allow searches of car compartments during a stop with reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion is not granted just because someone says "no, you may not search my vehicle."

 

[nemoaz]

This is why it's dangerous for non-lawyers to try to read caselaw, because you don't have the "rest of the outline" in place so to speak. And yes, I've read them all, in great detail, briefed the cases, and was drilled by some know it all about every footnote.

The case upheld the search of the CONTAINER within the trunk, but not the rest of the vehicle for an unrelated reason. I am not going to be able to give you an entire course on criminal procedure. Check out one of the outlines online, or a Gilberts or similar law summary if that is what you want.

I would ask for your money back from that "top 30" school.

I'll tell them you recommended that, but I think the loans will be with me for a while nevertheless.

Here's more:

§ 3.02 Weapons Searches

[A] Holding of Terry v. Ohio

At issue in Terry was a pat-down of a suspect that the officer observed apparently “casing” a store in order to rob it. The Court found that the brief restraint and pat-down did constitute a search and seizure. Next applying the reasonableness balancing test, the Court weighed society's interest of effective crime prevention and detection – which would be impaired if the police could not confront suspects for investigative purposes on less than probable cause – and the police's legitimate immediate interest in ensuring that the suspect is not armed, against the invasion of the suspect's personal liberty. The Court held that the police conduct was constitutional, stating that when an officer has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous, the officer has the constitutional authority to conduct a search for weapons without probable cause or a warrant.

Weapon Searches of Persons

The purpose of the Terry search is limited to the sole purpose of determining whether the suspect is armed. While the appropriate manner of the protective search depends on the specific circumstances, generally, the proper technique, as approved in Terry, is as follows:

(1) If an officer feels no object during a pat-down, or feels an object that does not appear to be a weapon, no further search is justifiable.

(2) If the initial pat-down – with no further touching – provides the officer with probable cause for believing that an object felt is contraband or other criminal evidence subject to seizure, he may pull out the object without a warrant, as part of the plain-touch doctrine.

(3) If the officer feels an object that he reasonably believes is a weapon, the officer may conduct a search by removing the object from the suspect.

(4) If the object he pulls out is a container, he may feel the container to see if it might contain a weapon inside.

(5) If his suspicions regarding the container are not reasonably dispelled by its size, weight, and feel, the officer may, at a minimum, retain possession of the container.

(6) If the container could not reasonably contain a weapon, it may not be searched or seized.

[C] Weapons Searches of Automobiles. The police may search the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be found, if the officer reasonably believes that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983).

. . .

§ 3.07 Automobile Searches [A] Searches at the Scene

A police officer may conduct an immediate warrantless search of an automobile that the officer has probable cause to believe contains contraband, fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime if:

(1) the officer stops the vehicle traveling on a public road; or

(2) the officer discovers the vehicle parked, but apparently capable of operation, in a non-residential location, such as a public parking lot or gas station.

Searches Away From the Scene. A warrantless search of an automobile that would be valid if it were conducted at the scene, is also permissible if it takes place shortly thereafter away from the scene, such as if the police impound the vehicle and subsequently conduct the search. The Supreme Court has authorized delays of a few days, United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478 (1985), but found a year-long delay unreasonable, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).

[C] Searches of Containers. Containers, even one belonging to a passenger who is not suspected of criminal activity, may be searched without a warrant during an otherwise lawful automobile search provided the container is large enough to hold the criminal evidence for which the police are searching. Any container that constitutionally can be searched at the scene may also be seized and searched without a warrant shortly thereafter, at the police station.

And here's the source for this outline. It looks like a pretty useable source without the minutiae although there aren't many actual case cites. I guess you'll just have to trust them. They well respected (as opposed to the law student's outline I posted above). http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crimpro/crimpro03.htm.

 

[Outlaws]

I've often asked for consent to search (or whether they will consent to a polygraph) just to see the reaction of the person.

So you are a cop/detective?

 

[nemoaz]

I don't think I've ever specified exactly what I'm doing now, purposefully. I work for the good guys. What do you do? (Sarcasm. I don't really expect an answer.)

Reasonable suspicion is not granted just because someone says "no, you may not search my vehicle."

Of course, you are right. I didn't say it was. Furthermore, it's hard to argue on the side of the road, and you don't exactly have an effective method of immediate appeal.

 

[Outlaws]

I don't think I've ever specified exactly what I'm doing now, purposefully. I work for the good guys. What do you do?

I work on diesel engines, and I don't believe in treating people as guilty until proven innocent.

 

[nemoaz]

and I don't believe in treating people as guilty until proven innocent.

Neither do I.

 

[Outlaws]

Government isn't the good guy. Government is the necessary evil.

I've often asked for consent to search (or whether they will consent to a polygraph) just to see the reaction of the person.

That is not treating them as innocent. If you are investigating a murder, we are on a slightly different playing field, but in regards to vehicle searches during traffic stops, you just treated them as guilty of something, you just don't know what.

 

[pittspilot]

nemoaz,

Don't take this the wrong way, but don't you get enough of arguing legal minutae during work? I know I do.

One other thing. I consider it the height of the legal profession's arrogance that we tell folks that only lawyers are capable of understanding Constitutional law for two reasons. Firstly, we lawyers have so complicated Constitutional law, that no one understands it, including us the lawyers, and those arbitrators, the USSC. Second, it is an amazing insult for us lawyers to inform the general population that they are incapable of understanding their rights. If the average person does not understand the Constitution then our Republic is surely doomed, lawyers or not.

 

[nobody_special]

Did you read the whole thing?

Did you read the entire thing?

So explain what part says they may "frisk the passenger compartment"?

That would be this part, which BTW is a SCOTUS ruling that overturned the Michican supreme court:

2. The protective search of the passenger compartment of respondent's car was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court.

 

[nobody_special]

Pittspilot, I really like your attitude.

Furthermore, if non-lawyers can't possibly understand the law, well... I'd claim that ignorance of the law should be an excuse. IIRC, Nebuchadnezzar had the laws displayed in public specifically so that the people would know them, and therefore ignorance could not be an excuse. With our monstrously large and complicated legal code, it's essentially impossible for anyone to understand...

 

[Outlaws]

The cop saw a hunting knife on the floor which was within the reaching distance of the driver while the driver was returning to the vehicle to get his registration. This doesn't mean that if a cop stops me he can just go ahead and search my vehicle because he feels like it.

This whole debate started because someone said that you shouldn't bother saying no to a search because the cop can just search you anyways. That is 100% false.

 

[nobody_special]

Outlaws, you're right.

However, the point is that they can search your vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion that you may pose a threat. And that threshold is much lower than probable cause.

IMNSHO, that's a serious breach of the 4th Amendment, courtesy of the war on drugs...

 

[Dgindlesperger]

quick one....got pulled over for speeding early on a sunday morning on my wy to the range.
Police "Do you have any weapons on the car?"
Me "On my way to the range, I got a bunch of guns in the trunk all registared and unloaded If you need I will open the trunk and you may check them."
Police. "Thanks, just sit tight and I'll be right back"
He wrote me the ticket and that was it.

 

[Creature]

nemoaz,

Don't take this the wrong way, but don't you get enough of arguing legal minutae during work? I know I do.

One other thing. I consider it the height of the legal profession's arrogance that we tell folks that only lawyers are capable of understanding Constitutional law for two reasons. Firstly, we lawyers have so complicated Constitutional law, that no one understands it, including us the lawyers, and those arbitrators, the USSC. Second, it is an amazing insult for us lawyers to inform the general population that they are incapable of understanding their rights. If the average person does not understand the Constitution then our Republic is surely doomed, lawyers or not.

Hooray for pittspilot!!

 

[wolfman01]

My opinion is that if you are going to assert ANY Right, you better have your own independant recording device. For 15 years, I've never gone into a supervisor meeting without one in order to protect myself. I do not see why this would be any different. As long as the other person-- including the LEO-- is aware that you have a recorder going, there is no way it would not serve as evidence as to whether or not you gave consent.

Of course, the corrupt LEO would have no problem destroying your recorder after your arrest.

 

[nemoaz]

Second, it is an amazing insult for us lawyers to inform the general population that they are incapable of understanding their rights. If the average person does not understand the Constitution then our Republic is surely doomed, lawyers or not.

I don't think I said that. I think I told him he was missing the point of the case, the new or clarified rule of law, and was instead looking at who won the application of the facts.

Furthermore, if non-lawyers can't possibly understand the law, well... I'd claim that ignorance of the law should be an excuse... With our monstrously large and complicated legal code, it's essentially impossible for anyone to understand...

Not really. The black letter crim procedure/constitutional law isn't that complicated. That link gave some pretty good nutshell black letter law material. (There is a button somewhere that will allow you to leaf forward and backward through the chapters.) Anyone can understand the basics. I gave up long ago caring about the reasoning and whether or not it's "right" or "wrong." My opinion (or yours) of how the Bill of Rights and Constitution SHOULD be interpreted does not count for much.

Don't take this the wrong way, but don't you get enough of arguing legal minutae during work? I know I do.

I hate to see jailhouse lawyers, even if well-meaning, getting other people in trouble with advise like "lock the doors and demand a search warrant."

 

[thexrayboy]

My opinion is that if you are going to assert ANY Right, you better have your own independant recording device. For 15 years, I've never gone into a supervisor meeting without one in order to protect myself. I do not see why this would be any different. As long as the other person-- including the LEO-- is aware that you have a recorder going, there is no way it would not serve as evidence as to whether or not you gave consent.

As has been pointed out earlier, any LEO who willingly and knowingly violates your rights regarding search, seizure and consent would certainly have no compunction about confiscating and destroying any electronic recordings documenting his activities. To volunteer to any LEO that such evidence exists is to invite its disappearance. Whether or not to record these encounters is a separate issue with separate legal ramifications.

No simple advice on how to deal with LEO will cover all possible situations.
The best bet is to simply keep your mouth shut. Offer up no information. When asked a question by LEO ask the officer to repeat the question so you can be sure you heard it correctly and to also allow you a moment to formulate a reply. Most questions asked you may simple decline to answer.
If the officer has a hard on and wants to **** with you its going to happen.
Anything you say will most likely only complicate things further.

If asked for permission by the officer for him to do anything decline. No exceptions, no explanations. The officer will do what he wishes. You cannot stop it. However you may, perhaps void his activity by keeping your mouth shut. No guarantees here as LEO generally want to win and usually have no problems bending and breaking the rules to get what they want. They know its a he said/ she said proposition about what took place on the side of the road and they know that without independent evidence their word is what will be taken as fact 99+% of the time.

Kinda sucks knowing the courts routinely rubber stamp this police misconduct. The only solution to that is voting to recall judges that ignore the constitution in favor of governmental expedience.

 

[Avenger29]

quick one....got pulled over for speeding early on a sunday morning on my wy to the range.
Police "Do you have any weapons on the car?"
Me "On my way to the range, I got a bunch of guns in the trunk all registared and unloaded If you need I will open the trunk and you may check them."
Police. "Thanks, just sit tight and I'll be right back"
He wrote me the ticket and that was it.

Chilling. Thank God I don't have to register my guns, or inform a cop if I have them.

And, I keep them loaded. Within reach. I'm living on the edge, man.

Of course, I live in an area where if you have less than 10 guns, you are a flaming liberal.